<p>Stickershock while I agree with you the actual savings do not really do much in terms of a $3billion hole.</p>
<p>mini: Interesting. Would it also pay for health care of the insurance company employees that are laid off? Just kidding.</p>
<p>“fundingfather- I do not like Corzine’s plan either- but and it is a very big but- give me a realistic alternative.”</p>
<p>First alternative is to reduce expenses. Since the biggest expense is apparently the bloated pension and health insurance for public employees, I would start by looking at that. Because of ERISA, pensions, once earned can not be reduced or eliminated. However, going forward they can be capped or reduced. (That is, what an employee has earned for the first x years of his/her employ can not be touched, but there are no restrictions against cutting future promises for his/her next y years.) Likewise, there is no guarantee in ERISA for cost of living adjustments once retirement starts. Why does the state need to do this for its retirees? Both the restrictions on pensions and the elimination of COL adjustments are happening to just about every private sector employee, why are government employees exempt from this?</p>
<p>Secondly, health insurance in retirement is not covered by ERISA. Most private sector companies are either eliminating or severely cutting these benefits back. Once again, why are government workers immune from this?</p>
<p>That’s where I would look from a cost perspective. From a revenue perspective there are FAR fairer methods of increasing revenues than tolls. The problem with tolls is that they hit only those people who must use the toll roads. Anyone who uses one of the freeways or just local roads are exempt from paying any additional money to bail out the rest of the state. If Corzine wants to use transportation as the means to balance the budget, a far more equitable solution would be to just raise the gas tax. Then the burden would be spread equitably across the state.
(BTW, I am one of the people who would hardly be impacted at all - I only commute one mile to work and probably pay less than $30 per year on tolls. But this would be grossly unfair to people who made life choices based on reasonable tolls.)</p>
<p>Besides its unfairness, there will be secondary effects of increased tolls. With such draconian increases in the tolls, people will choose to avoid the toll roads and put more strain and congestion onto the local roads. Is that really what NJ needs more of? More road congestion?</p>
<p>The German health care system was pretty complicated behind the scenes - I don’t know exactly how it works - though I did once google an explanation that was pretty comprehensive just can’t remember it too well. There were several different insurance companies depending on your profession. I belonged to the one for technical jobs. As far as I could tell I pretty much went to the doctor when I felt sick and someone else paid. It all came out of my paycheck - no idea what the company paid. When I was pregnant I was given a booklet for regular checkups and I think there might have been something similar for well baby checkups. Of course someone was doing the paperwork, but the point is it wasn’t me. I hate filling out those forms and trying to figure out if I really owe the parts the insurance company refuses to pay. I hate having the private health care account and then running around in December trying to use it up because we forgot to go to the dentist enough. </p>
<p>There is private insurance in Germany and some do opt out. My husband did the last year we were there because it was going to save him a lot of money - but my recollection is that it might not have been worth it if he’d been staying. He was paid by different grants different years. Can’t remember if that might have had something to do with why it was worthwhile that year. </p>
<p>I know that there were more problems with the health care system after we left - we left just before the Berlin Wall came down. I don’t know exactly how the legal immigrants (guest workers and their children) were taken care of. I know immigration (legal and illegal) is getting to be more of a problem all over Europe. One way or another we pay for immigrants anyway, why not get them insured?</p>
<p>As for “Patients are billed directly by the provider and are then reimbursed by the insurance company (opposite of here).” This is exactly how our dental insurance works. Most of our other doctors take the card, but then half the time they bill me when the insurance company doesn’t pay up. So that’s no better.</p>
<p>Mathmom, Germany’s system is based on mutual benefit societies. </p>
<p>Mutual societies are groupings of persons with social-welfare objectives and without a profit motive, whose goal is to provide protection against the consequences of various social risks to their members and members’ families. They generally furnish social welfare coverage and access to social services financed on the basis of solidarity, whose scope is defined democratically by the members. The mutual society functions essentially according to the principle of autonomous management, absence of shareholders and independence from public authorities. Although mutual societies are required to comply with national legislation and are consequently subject to supervision by these same authorities, democratic control of their functioning is exercised primarily by their statutory bodies. Their autonomy and democratic structure serve as a guarantee of dynamism and constant adaptation of their services to respond to actual needs. </p>
<p>Health systems vary very widely in Europe and are conventionally classified into Beveridgian systems or national health systems (based upon the funding of the resources spent on health through taxation), as in the United Kingdom, or into Bismarckian systems or health insurance systems, structured around health insurance funds as in France or in Germany, although increasingly these latter do also draw part of their financing from taxation. (Quoted from the aim website)</p>
<p>A couple of nice presentations are available at:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.aim-mutual.org/uploads/fmanager/about_mutuality/en_vue_densemble_des_systmes_de_sant_en_europe.pdf[/url]”>http://www.aim-mutual.org/uploads/fmanager/about_mutuality/en_vue_densemble_des_systmes_de_sant_en_europe.pdf</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.aim-mutual.org/uploads/fmanager/about_mutuality/compulsory_complementary_hs_in_europe_27.pdf[/url]”>http://www.aim-mutual.org/uploads/fmanager/about_mutuality/compulsory_complementary_hs_in_europe_27.pdf</a></p>
<p>Re the thread’s title: No. No she is most certainly not.</p>
<p>It used to be a good thread so I’ll attempt to get it back on track.</p>
<p>Anyone read Maureen Dowd today. She seems to be one of those people who Hillary brings out the scorn in.</p>
<p>Many are reporting that the crying worked on Hillary’s peers, the older women set. Interestingly, poorer families (under $50,000) went for Hillary by a large margin and the over $100,000’s to Obama.</p>
<p>fundingfather so I do not hijack this thread I will respond in a new thread. I do agree with you that NJ taxes are excessive but I think I can show you that what you suggest does not create the savings needed. I will also answer your questions re: health care and retirement.</p>
<p>fundingfather- while I agree with you that NJ taxes are excessive I believe your suggestions do not save near the money you believe to resolve the problem. I will respond in detail in a seperate thread.</p>
<p>
The German system has some basic features. When you enter the workforce you must join one of the carriers; once you’re in you can never be thrown out. The only links to your employer are that they pay half the premium (you pay the other half through payroll deduction), and your premium is a percentage of your wages. Your employer is sending in premiums (probably to multiple carriers), but is otherwise not involved. If you’re unemployed (including retired), your premium is zero. Some large companies (like Siemens) run their own systems, but they follow the same rules, and employees don’t have to join it (they may join another). There are no claim forms to fill out.</p>
<p>There is also private insurance, with it’s own rules and procedures. Everyone is covered by some form of health insurance.</p>
<p>A very minor contribution to the discussion on health care arising from my recent experience.</p>
<p>My company just switched its insurance carrier for drugs benefits. It used to be I would have a $15 co-pay for prescription medicine. Now, with the new provider, there are three co-pay rates. $5 for generic drugs, $15 for preferred brand drugs and $40 for non-preferred brand drugs. Each insured person gets a list of the generic drugs and the preferred alternatives. It turned out that my prescription was for a non-preferred brand, so one month’s supply would have gone up from$15 to $40. So, yesterday, during my check-up, my doctor looked up alternatives and sent out the necessary forms. Great! I won’t have to pay more for my medicine.</p>
<p>I am sensitive to the argument that big pharma needs big profits to undertake cutting-edge research. My experience also shows that the clout of a huge company such as mine makes it possible to save a significant amount of money. I cannot believe that pharmaceutical companies would negotiate deals that wiped out their profits.</p>
<p>Sally Bedell Smith has a book about the Clintons due to come out on Feb. 4, one day before Super Tuesday. Two long excerpts have appeared, one in Vanity Fair, the other in a British tabloid:</p>
<p>[How</a> Hillary Clinton made a pact with the devil for political power | the Daily Mail](<a href=“Why Hillary Clinton let husband Bill seduce any woman in sight | Daily Mail Online”>Why Hillary Clinton let husband Bill seduce any woman in sight | Daily Mail Online)
[White</a> House Civil War: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com](<a href=“http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/clinton200711]White”>White House Civil War | Vanity Fair)</p>
<p>I don’t know if Hillary is cooked in general, but she is cooked with this voter. Comparing herself with Margaret Thatcher? I don’t think so.<br>
I’m going with Obama. Washington needs to be flushed out.</p>
<p>Well, I find interesting that Obama’s campaign people, if not Obama himself, keep invoking his comparison to JFK. In fact, I think he did compare himself to JFK when he responded to Clinton’s “false hope” comment. Comparing himself to either of those men is odd, especially considering he wants to be viewed as the future, not the “status-quo,” and definitely not a candidate looking to the past. His comparison to a president from nearly 50 years ago, and to MLK, just seems desperate to me, if not a little bit stupid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>mini:</p>
<p>please start another thread with links to the studies. I’m sure they would be enlightening.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also, as I’ve requested before, please check with the State and post the actual COSTS of your specific plan coverage (which is paid by your state taxpayers). The premiums that you personally pay are not relevant, since we don’t know what portion of your premium contributes to the total costs of your specific plan, including claim administration. [btw: the links you posted previously for the Wash state plan were blended rates for everyone, including your PPO’s and HMO’s and everything else, so differentiating the costs of those plans was not possible.]</p>
<p>I agree with Andi about the stupidity of Hillary comparing herself with Margaret Thatcher. That’s playing the gender card with a vengeance. Margaret Thatcher’s husband did not help her get elected. He spent his time playing golf, trying his best to stay out of the picture. Thatcher, whom some wags described as “the only real man in her cabinet” was a conservative who undid years of Labor policies. Her most effective campaign poster was one that showed a long queue of people waiting outside an unemployment office and simply stated “The Labor queue.” It was pretty devastating. She was Ronald Reagan without the twinkle in her eyes and the reassuring speeches. One famous phrase from her “This Lady’s not for Turning” (picking on the title of a well-known play from her youth, “This Lady’s not for Burning”). She was everything that Hillary was/is not.</p>
<p>I don’t see how comparing oneself to someone who is dead is stupid. Better than comparing oneself to someone who isn’t born yet, no? Was JFK or MLK for the status quo? Obama is not suggesting going back to the 1950s or 1960s. He is trying to motivate people, especially young people the way JFK and MLK did.</p>
<p>I think Obama might win the Demarcate nomination.
Hillary is gots a chance of winning</p>
<p>Any particular action by any candidate must be viewed in hindsight when we know the outcome. Only then do we know if it was stupidity or genius.</p>
<p>lol obama yay</p>
<p>“Any particular action by any candidate must be viewed in hindsight when we know the outcome. Only then do we know if it was stupidity or genius.”</p>
<p>Think of the 7 second emotional demonstration in Portsmouth NH by Hillary. Genius! :rolleyes:</p>